Attached is a copy of Executive Order No. 1054. The executive order brings together the California State University Board policies that comprise the CSU Fee Policy. This includes the philosophical statement on fees and educational costs, adopted by the Trustees in March 1993, entitled “Policies for Pricing and Strategies for Paying” and the most recent Fee Policy statement approved in May 2010. The referenced items make up the overall strategic framework and guidelines for administration of CSU fees.

The executive order also updates terminology to clarify the nomenclature associated with the various fees, and continues the range within which presidents are authorized to establish and adjust category III miscellaneous course fees.

Each campus should modify all fee notifications and billings to students and their families to reflect the change in the tuition fee terminology.

In accordance with the policy of the California State University, the campus president has the responsibility for implementing executive orders where applicable and for maintaining the campus repository and index for all executive orders.

CBR/kp

Executive Order 1054

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California 90802-4210
(562) 951-4700

This executive order brings together the California State University Board policies that comprise the CSU Fee Policy, defines the change in terminology to tuition fees for some Category I fees, and continues the delegated range for the establishment and adjustment of Category III miscellaneous course fees.

California State University, Policies for Pricing and Strategies for Paying
In March 1993 the Board of Trustees adopted a strategic framework called “Policies for Pricing and Strategies for Paying,” making explicit the relationship between the state’s fiscal responsibility for providing funding for student access and the share of the educational costs to be assumed by students and their families. This policy statement outlined the principles under which the CSU would determine fee rates and maintain adequate financial aid resources for students.

California State University Student Fee Policy
In May 2010 the CSU Board of Trustees adopted the "CSU Fee Policy", which establishes categories of fees and directs which entity has authority over them.

Category I fees are authorized by the Board of Trustees and charged at the same rate at all campuses. They currently include the following with the new titles effective as of this date:

Basic:

Undergraduate Tuition Fee

Credential Program Tuition Fee

Graduate/Post Baccalaureate Tuition Fee

Doctorate Tuition Fee

Supplemental (per unit, in addition to basic tuition fees):

Professional Program Fee

Non-Resident Tuition Fee

Other:

Application Fee

Each campus should modify all fee notifications and billings, in all formats, to students and their families to reflect these changes in the Category I fee terminology.
Other than the above-mentioned nomenclature changes, this executive order makes no changes to definition, authority, responsibility or accountability for Category I through Category V fees, and therefore these fee categories continue to be a part of the trustees' overall fee policy.

The range within which campus presidents may establish and adjust Category III miscellaneous course fees is unchanged and remains in effect under this executive order.

QUALITY AND
AFFORDABILITY: POLICIES FOR PRICING AND STRATEGIES FOR PAYING

PREAMBLE

One of the three policies that are the foundation of the California
Master Plan for Higher Education is the maintenance of low fees. The other two
are broad access to higher education for the citizens of California and wide availability
of academic program offerings of high quality. Access and quality are the goals
of California higher education, while the preservation of low fees has been an
important means for achieving these goals. After several decades of
extraordinary commitment to fulfilling the promise of the Master Plan, the
current period of unprecedented economic stress in California has resulted in
the state's inability to sustain its historic level of support to higher
education. The question is whether the fundamental goals of the Master Plan for
Higher Education can be continued, perhaps with less destructive modification
to the basic policies, in a way that makes it possible to keep the essential
promise to students and citizens of California.

It is imperative that we strive to retain our social contract because
the return on the state's investment in the CSU can be readily measured in
terms of benefits to the state and benefits to the individuals we serve. CSU is
an instrument for preserving the essential moral commitment of constructive socioeconomic
mobility. One of nine teachers for the country and three of four for the state
are trained in the CSU. Eighty percent of those who receive a bachelor's degree
in California, after transfer from a community college to a public university,
graduate from a CSU campus. CSU faculty have defined the cutting edge of work
in public policy analysis and applied research, key ingredients of California's
healthy social transition. For all these benefits, the CSU definitions of
quality and access must continue to include availability to newer
constituencies and relatively low costs for those in need. These are the areas
where the state must place its priority and align its policy direction. The clear
focus must be on those who can pay and those who cannot, and on increased
returns for California's investment.

One modification to basic policies is the
adoption of pricing patterns for California public higher education which more
nearly mirror the tuition and fee policies
of similar institutions across the United States. Of course California always
has been proud of its ability to provide
more subsidy for all, than any other state but does anyone believe that
this financial generosity is likely to prevail again? Therefore, this
modification should provide for a predictable and reasonable adjustment of
student fees from year to year so that students and their families are better
able to plan for university attendance. It is equally important that a
commitment to students is established on the part of the institution regarding
what those fees will "buy". A rational framework for higher education
pricing and financial aid might include measures and criteria which derive from

•incentives to improve access in terms of entry into the university system and
shortening time to degree; and

•the considerable disparities of family income
and wealth among those seeking California higher education.

Any long term fee and aid policy, particularly one that requires a
greater average contribution on the part of students and their families, must assume a commitment on
the part of the state to assume its share of the partnership. The policies suggested here are predicated on
not losing further ground in 1993/94 and beyond in state appropriations. The state's
general revenue fund should pay for the access of additional students headed
toward our universities. Thus, the only way to ensure a high level of student access
in the short run is to recover a higher level of state appropriations.

Provision of adequate student financial aid and equitable application
of aid policies would be a central tenet of a new and higher student
pricing and aid structure. To mitigate an increase in fees becoming a barrier
to access, a comprehensive program of student aid is imperative. A dramatic improvement
in student aid is essential to meet the challenge of increasing disparity in
family incomes in California which causes increasing disparity in students'
ability to pay for college. A well defined set of policies for student
financial aid must be linked directly to student fee policies. CSU is working
with the University of California, the other segments of higher education, and
relevant state agencies on a broader, long-term review of how California raises
and allocates funds for aid.

PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW PRICING STRUCTURE

•Fee Revenue Would
Fund Improvements to the Direct Benefit of Students Attending CSU, While State
Appropriation Funding Would Determine the Number of Students Who Could Attend
CSU: The development of a new fee policy for
students must be accompanied by a clarification of the responsibility of the state.
The burden of ensuring that the state assumes its fundamental responsibility to
provide adequate support for public higher education must remain with State
policy makers. That responsibility is to provide access to higher education for
its citizens by funding the operations of its universities, and that funding
level determines how many students can be served. CSU enrollment levels have
always been, and will continue to be, determined by the level of support
provided by the state budget. Student fee
revenues, in turn, can enhance the academic programs, improve the
availability of courses, and facilitate student progress, but they cannot, and
never should be expected to
support increased access. It is also the
intention of this policy that
a portion of student fee revenues would fund the student aid increases
necessary to meet increased need caused by the higher fees.

•Using Percentage of
Cost of Education to Determine Amount of State University Fee (SUF): Students and their families should be charged a portion of the costs
of education, as determined by a coherent and defensible policy, in the form of
fees. California public institutions of higher education should establish a
structure for tuition and fees that is more nearly comparable to that charged in
other states with similar institutions.

•Differential Fees
for Graduate /Postbaccalaureate) Study: Higher
cost associated with graduate study should be recognized by the fee structure.
Studies of education costs reveal cost differentials that are highly dependent
upon the level and program of academic study, with master's degree programs
costing more than undergraduate degree programs, and doctoral study costing
substantially more than study at the master's level professional programs,
especially those in the health sciences, are the most costly of all
advanced degree programs. It is also possible to determine the relative
differential costs for lower division and upper division undergraduate study
and to establish fee levels that reflect this differential. This proposal
envisions a specific exception to the policy of differential fees for
postbaccalaureate education credential candidates, whose service is so
essential to the future of California that the lower undergraduate fee structure, should continue for
those students.

•Continue Fee
Structures that Differentiate for Part-Time and Full-Time Study: The current fee structure for California State University
establishes one fee for limited (6 units or less) and another fee for regular
(more than 6 units) study. As the ceiling on the fee is increased and the policyaltered to reflect
costs, it is useful to maintain a fee structure that reflects the number of
courses or student credit hours taken. This approach can be expanded to leave a
fixed fee rate for students taking 12 units or more and instituting per unit
charges for students taking fewer units. This type of fee structure contains
incentives for students to improve their progress toward a degree. This in turn
helps students to enter the workforce more rapidly and to become financially
independent. As students accelerate progress to a degree, campus space becomes available
for new students to enter the university. More incentives could be added to
encourage students to increase their credit load each term.

•Clarify Meaning of
Tuition: State law (Education Code Section 89703)
limits CSU tuition for California
residents to $25 per year. It also limits the use of tuition revenues to instructional support. It is important to
resolve these statutory problems so that revenues generated from increased
student fees could support programs of
instruction. The time has come to acknowledge formally that in order for
public higher education to survive, the state and students of California must
establish a partnership. That partnership would be grounded in the
determination of "fair share"
contributions towards educational costs. The historic commitment to low fees,
regardless of economic status, cannot be sustained in light of the protracted
problems of the state budget. Formally acknowledging this would lend
credibility to any new policy approach, and allowing fee revenues to augment
the instructional programs would increase accountability to students, their
families, and state policy makers. It is therefore very important that policy
makers remove the cap on tuition and/or remove the barrier to using student fee
revenues to enhance instructional programs.

PRINCIPLES FOR A
PROGRAM OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID

Several strategies comprise a comprehensive approach for students to manage
the costs of college attendance. The primary strategy for the neediest of
students is "gift aid" or grants of various sorts. As the
economic means of students and their families increase, the strategies become more
diverse and would include "self help aid" such as work study and
student loans. Deferred payment strategies would also be used to help students
spread the payment of fees across the term of study. The logical extension of
this policy is that students from higher income families would no longer
receive large subsidies from the state to attend college.

GRANTS:

•Establish
Institutional Commitment to Student Grant Aid:
The Trustees of the California State University have established a program of
State University Grants, the purpose of which has been to provide assistance to
needy students not adequately served by state and federal programs of student
aid. In developing a new student fee structure for CSU, the role of
Institutional grants should be reviewed. During the recent period of declining
budget support to state student aid, CSU increased its commitment through the
State University Grant program to fill the gap created by rising student fees
and declining Cal Grants. In developing the policy framework for State
University Grants, a number of criteria should be considered, including the
following:

•Provide a portion of fee revenues to augment
the State University Grant program.

•Provide grants to offset the fee Increase
according to a student's family financial position.

•Combine grants and loans to ration limited
funds and to "package" aid in accordance with CSU's mission.

•Assign priority to first-time freshmen and
upper division community college transfers.

•Reform the State
Program of Student Aid to be More Responsive to Student Need: The existing program of Cal Grants was formulated in an earlier
period of California's history when fees at public universities were
comprehensively low, and the major objectives of the Cal Grant programs were to
recognize student achievement and to provide student choice. Financial problems
for the neediest students have been further exacerbated by the rationing of
reduced Cal Grant dollars to students on the basis of academic achievement in
high school rather than on the basis of financial need. With the current state
budget problems, funding for the Cal Grant programs has actually declined even
though student fees have continued to increase, most dramatically at the
California State University and University of California. Restoration of the
full partnership with state and federal student aid programs should be a high
priority for policy makers as it is for trustees. A reasonable balance of roles
can and must be found.

Thus a comprehensive overhaul of the state program of student aid is essential
to the development of a coherent structure of student fees. The primary goal of
a revised public policy would channel student aid funds towards students with
the greatest need. The intent of this policy goal is to expand the amount and
type of financial aid available to all students in need. CSU is working with
the University of California and private institutions in California to examine
the public policy implications of new approaches to the provision of financial
assistance and to re-examine guidelines regarding which students should be
subsidized and for what purposes.

•Seek Adequate
Funding and Full Eligibility for CSU Students from Federal Programs of Student
Aid: Changes to the Higher EducationAct
through the reauthorization process have· raised technical problems related to
the level of grant eligibility for many CSU students. Restoration of full eligibility
and full funding of federal student aid programs, especially the Pell Grant
program, must be a high priority for CSU.

LOANS AND SELF HELP:

•Federal and State Student Loan Programs:
Increasing prices of higher education in California make the development of an
array of loan programs for students imperative. CSU should explore the full potential
for forgivable and low-interest loan programs. Among the potential programs are
state and federal options that are tied to community service, to professions
that are in high need, and regions of California that are underserved.
Considerable emphasis should be given to a program of national service, which
could provide an income contingent repayment loan to assist students that attend
college and maximize employment opportunities in specified occupations or allow
students to participate in service activities in return for a post-service
benefit (such as an education grant). Exploratory conversations are underway
with the state treasurer's office concerning the creation of a state trust
program that would provide student loans.

FINANCING OPTION:

•Deferred Payment Programs: CSU has recently developed a program which permits students to
spread fee payments across the term of study. Further expansion of this and
similar programs will assist students in managing the costs of college
attendance (payment of fees by credit card would be a similar deferred payment
approach).

CONCLUDING COMMENT

The challenge faced by California State University and, indeed, by the
state's policy makers, is how to achieve the goals of the Master Plan for
Higher Education in a profoundly different environment than the one which
spawned its great aspirations for California's citizens. The enlightened self
interest of the state compels policy makers to focus upon the priority that
must be accorded to providing the opportunity for Californians of every
economic circumstance to gain the higher education they seek and for which they
have earned. This priority for California is an economic imperative, if the state
is to recover and sustain its economic strength and vitality. The goals of
access and quality are the foundation of the Master Plan, and the centerpiece
for the development of the California State University. The pursuit of new
approaches to preserving these goals is the impetus for this policy framework.

The framework for changing pricing and financial aid policies to
achieve quality and affordability of higher education in the CSU, is founded on
a new reality for California - one that does not anticipate return to the
circumstances of an earlier era. The underlying society that comprises the
California of the 1990's reflects both richer diversity and greater disparity.
The intent of this proposal is that the state subsidy would provide fundamental
access to our university for students who meet the entry qualifications, and
that our pricing policies would enhance the quality of their educational
experiences. This policy is predicated on higher charges to students, offset by
improved financial aid, and on sustained commitment by the state to fund a
higher educational opportunity for CSU students.

Following this strategy, the state and the California State University
together would direct financial support for the maximum social advantage, and
would achieve through aggressive financial aid programs true opportunity for
each individual student. Achievement of this goal will require a more effective
and more comprehensive program of information and outreach on student financial
aid than has ever before been implemented. This policy framework calls for a
new partnership commitment from the students, the state and the university.
Each is called upon to sacrifice and to innovate. The new direction is not
pleasant, it is not easy, but the best among very difficult alternatives must be identified with candor and
with courage.

The California State
University Student Fee Policy

(Fee Administration)

I.Fee Policy Statement

The
CSU makes every effort to keep student costs to a minimum.Fees listed in published schedules or student
accounts may need to be increased when public funding is inadequate.Therefore, CSU must reserve the right, even
after initial fee payments are made, to increase or modify any listed fees,
without notice, until the date when instruction for a particular semester or
quarter has begun.All CSU listed fees
should be regarded as estimates
that are subject to change upon approval by the Board of Trustees, the
Chancellor, or the Presidents, as appropriate.

II. Definitions

A.Category I Fees – Systemwide mandatory tuition fees and other fees that
must be paid to apply to, enroll in, or attend the university, or to pay the
full cost of instruction required of some students by statute.

B.Category II Fees – Campus mandatory fees that must be paid to enroll in
or attend the university.

C.Category III Fees – Fees associated with state-supported courses.
Specifically for materials and services used in concert with the basic
foundation of an academic course offering.

D. Category IV Fees – Fees, other than Category II or III fees, paid to
receive materials, services, or for the use of facilities provided by the
university; and fees or deposits to reimburse the university for additional
costs resulting from dishonored payments, late submissions, or misuse of
property or as a security or guaranty.

III. Authority

A. The Board of Trustees provides policy guidance for all matters
pertaining to student fees and has authority for the establishment, oversight
and adjustment of Category I fees.

B.The chancellor is delegated authority for the establishment, oversight
and adjustment of Category II and Category III fees. The chancellor is not
delegated authority for Category I fees.

C.The president is delegated authority for the establishment, oversight
and adjustment of Category IV and Category V fees, and for the oversight and
adjustment of Category II and III fees.The president is not delegated authority to establish Category I fees,
Category II or Category III fees, or to adjust Category I fees. The president does, however, have
authority to establish Category III fees within a range established by the
chancellor.

IV.Responsibility

A.The president is responsible for assuring that appropriate and
meaningful consultation occurs prior to adjusting any campus-based fee and
before requesting that the chancellor establish a new Category II or Category
III fee.

1.The president shall establish a fee advisory committee comprised of
student, faculty, staff, and administrative representatives to provide advice
to the president. Membership of the fee advisory committee shall be established
in consultation with the campus student body association and the campus faculty
senate and shall include the president of the campus student body association
and the chair of the campus faculty senate or their designees. The president
shall appoint the chair of the fee advisory committee.

2.The president shall appoint members to the fee advisory committee,
excluding the student representatives who shall be appointed by the campus
student body association. Faculty members shall be appointed consistent with
normal campus processes for selecting faculty members to service on similar
committees.

3.Students appointed by the campus
student body association shall constitute a majority of the voting members of
the fee advisory committee.

4.A statement of revenues and
expenditures including a minimum of one year of actual costs and two years of
projected revenue and expenditures for the fee revenue supported activity shall
be developed by the campus chief financial officer and considered by the
president prior to establishing or adjusting any fee.

5.The president shall consult with
the fee advisory committee before adjusting or requesting that the chancellor
establish any Category II or III fees (subject to his/her approval in writing).

a.The fee advisory committee will consider proposals for the establishment
and adjustment of Category II or III fees, and will then make a recommendation
to the president.

b.The president will make a determination on Category IV and V fees after consideration
of the revenue and expenditure plans associated with the fees, and will then
notify the fee advisory committee of his or her decision.

B.Appropriate and meaningful consultation with campus constituencies
regarding Category II fees and the use of fee revenue is critical to assure
that the delegated authority is exercised in a manner that is consistent with
policies adopted by the board.

1.Appropriate and meaningful consultation includes consultation with bodies
such as the campus faculty senate, the campus student body association and
other constituencies affected by any proposed increase in an existing fee or
establishment of a new fee.

2.The policy presumes that a
student fee referendum will be conducted before adjusting or establishing
Category II fees. The president, however, may waive the referendum requirement
(unless it is required by Education Code) if he/she determines that a referendum
is not the best mechanism to achieve appropriate and meaningful consultation.

3.If a referendum is not conducted
prior to adjusting Category II fees or requesting the chancellor to establish a
new Category II fee, the president must demonstrate to the fee advisory
committee the reasons why the alternative consultation methods selected will be
more effective in complying with this policy.

C.An advisory student referendum is the preferred method of measuring
student support prior to adjusting a Category II fee or requesting the
chancellor to establish a new Category II fee but is subject to the exception
described in B-2.The referendum may be
conducted by the campus or the student body association. For referenda conducted
by the campus, the following shall apply:

1.The president in consultation with the student body association and the
faculty senate shall develop guidelines applicable to the student fee
referendum process designed to assure that the referendum is open, fair, and
objective.

2.The campus shall fund costs
associated with the referendum.

3.The fee advisory committee shall
issue a voter pamphlet providing objective analysis of the proposed fee action
and statements solicited by the committee for and against the proposed fee
action.

4.The fee advisory committee shall
determine the specific statements that shall be included in the pamphlet.

5.Copies of the voter pamphlet and
ballot and information regarding the dates, times, and polling locations shall
be available to students and published in the campus newspaper and in other
public locations around campus at least thirty days prior to the referendum.

6.The results of a referendum shall
be considered favorable when a majority of students voting approve the fee
action.

7.The results of the referendum
shall be advisory to the fee advisory committee and the president, unless
education code requires that the referendum pass.

D. If it is determined that a referendum is not the best mechanism for
appropriate and meaningful consultation, and is not required by Education Code,
an alternative consultation process may be utilized. The following shall
apply:

1.The president, upon deciding that
a referendum will not allow for the best measure of student opinion, will
inform the fee advisory committee of his/her intent to begin alternative
consultation.

2.Alternative consultation
strategies will be developed with input from the student body association and
the fee advisory committee to ensure that the process is transparent, and
meaningful, and will solicit the input of a representative sample of the
student body.

3.A representative sample should
include students in leadership positions as well as students who are not
involved in campus leadership. Efforts should be made to include students from
many aspects of campus life regardless of the type of fee.

4.Any written material regarding
the new fee, or fee increase should follow the same guidelines as the
referendum voter pamphlet (Section C above) to provide objective analysis of
the fee or fee increase.

5.Results of the alternative consultation
process should be summarized and put in writing and used as additional advisory
material to be taken into consideration by the fee advisory committee and the
president.

6.If a Category II fee for a
capital project (i.e. university union building, or health services building)
must be raised to meet minimum debt service revenue bond requirements that were
not required when the fee was established, the president can make that
adjustment without a full alternative consultation process, but must present
the debt service requirements and revenue projections to the fee advisory
committee prior to making the adjustment.

V. Accountability

A. The campus president shall provide to the fee advisory committee a
report of all fees in Categories II, III, IV and V. New fees, fee increases,
total revenue and unexpended balances should be included. The president has the
authority to decrease, suspend or eliminate fees as needed.

B.Each campus shall report annually to the chancellor, for the most
recently completed fiscal year, a complete inventory of all fees in categories
II, III, IV and V, including past year and current year fee rates, the total
revenuecollected for each fee, and the
remaining balance for each fee. The Category II fee report will be presented to
the board by the chancellor to allow the board to consider the level and range
of fees charged to students.

Miscellaneous
Course Fee Policy

Policy
Statement: Miscellaneous
course fees are defined as fees collected for materials, services or use of
facilities used in concert with the basic complement of supplies needed for
state-supported instruction.Miscellaneous course fees can only be charged for the actual cost of
providing exceptional instructional materials, services or use of an off-campus
facility. Students must have the option of attaining the materials or services
required through alternative means; however, in cases where such alternative
means are unavailable, students cannot opt out of utilizing the required
material or service and must pay the miscellaneous course fee.

The
following rules apply when determining if miscellaneous course fees can be
charged for exceptional materials or services in the classroom:

Miscellaneous
course fees can only be charged for the actual cost of the material,
service or use of facility being provided.

A
miscellaneous course fee cannot be charged for the basic
complement of classroom supplies and materials required for instruction.
These include but are not limited to: chalk, erasers, paper clips,
pointers, classroom instructional equipment such as projectors (slide,
overhead, computer, etc.) and associated supplies (bulbs, transparencies,
software, etc.), or any other supplies deemed necessary to equip the
instructional space for courses.

A
miscellaneous course fee cannot be charged for the basic
complement of laboratory supplies and instructional equipment necessary
for classroom lab requirements identified in the course description.These include but are not limited to
equipment, test tubes, work stations, computers or any supplies necessary
to equip laboratory space to complement classroom course instruction.

Administrative
charges and inflationary factors cannot be added to
miscellaneous course fees.Only the
actual cost of the material, service or use of a facility can be
charged.

Fees
that supplement the basic complement of classroom and laboratory instruction
by providing materials and services that would otherwise be unavailable to
students, and which allow students to meet the educational objectives of a
given course.

$0-$3,000

Fees
for courses that require field trips or travel off-campus in order to meet
the educational objectives of a given course.

Category I Per-Unit Fee in Graduate Professional Business Programs

1.Establishment and Terms of Fee Assessment

1.1 Effective Date
Effective fall 2009 a Category I per-unit fee in state-supported professional
graduate business programs shall be implemented as provided for in this
executive order.

1.2 Applicability

1.2.1 The Graduate Business Professional Fee shall be charged on a per-unit
basis for all required courses in state-supported professional master of
business degree programs that are subject to accreditation by the Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB International)
and that are authorized by the trustees or chancellor to assess such fees.

1.2.2 Students in conditionally classified admission status in graduate
professional programs shall be charged the Graduate Business Professional Fee
on a per-unit basis for each prerequisite course taken in fulfillment of
graduation requirements for these fee-authorized programs.

1.2.3 Programs authorized as of the issuance of this policy to assess these
fees to enrolled students are listed on Attachment 1 to this executive order.

1.3 Assessment of Fees

1.3.1 This fee shall be in addition to the State University Fee, applicable
non-resident tuition, and any campus-based fees.

1.3.2 This fee shall be assessed in the amount of $210 per semester unit or
$140 per quarter unit.

1.4 Fee Waivers

Employee fee waivers and other fee waivers are authorized by statute. The
terms of authorized employee fee waivers are subject to change and are agreed
upon as outlined in collective bargaining contracts. Please consult current
Human Resources Technical Memoranda at http://www.calstate.edu/HRAdm/memos.shtml

2.Establishing Fees
in Additional Applicable Programs

Upon request of a campus president, the chancellor is authorized to approve
the assessment of a Graduate Business Professional Fee upon students enrolled
in state-supported professional master’s degrees in business that are subject
to accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International and that are not included in the original roster of
fee-authorized programs.

3.Fee Revenue

In accordance with Education Code Section 89721(l), revenue collected from
all higher education fees shall be deposited in a local trust unless
otherwise specified.

4.Provision for
Financial Aid
Presidents are directed to set aside a minimum of 25% and not more than 33%
of the Graduate Business Professional Fee revenue for need-based financial
aid, with such funds to be used first to meet the demonstrated financial need
of students in affected campus professional graduate degree programs in
business; and that any part of the revenue that is not awarded to professional
business master’s degree program students be made available to meet
demonstrated financial need of any other undergraduate or graduate students
on the campus.

5.Modification of
Existing Fees

Beginning in fall 2010, for each adjustment made by trustee action to the
State University Fee for graduate students, an equal adjustment will be made
to the graduate professional business Category I fee.

6.Accountability

In the 2011-12 fiscal year, campuses shall report to the chancellor on their
progress in addressing the following expectations of the Board of Trustees.

6.2 Growth in enrollment diversity in such programs, including improved representation
of persons of modest financial means, improved representation of persons from
currently underrepresented groups, and a more balanced gender representation
among students.

6.3 Support for students through such means as providing internships and
placement assistance at the completion of their graduate business programs.

6.4 Improvements in faculty recruitment and retention rates.

6.5 For programs that seek accreditation by the Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business International, maintenance of accredited
status.

Programs Authorized to Assess Per Unit Fee in
State-Supported Professional Business Graduate Programs

TRUSTEES RESOLUTION Meeting Quality Standards in State-Supported Professional Business Graduate
Programs with Revenue Support Derived from a Per-Unit Fee (RFIN 05-09-03)

RESOLVED, By the Board of Trustees of the California
State University, that beginning with the fall term, 2009, a Graduate Business
Professional Fee shall be assessed to students for coursework required in
state-supported professional master’s of business degree programs that are
subject to accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International (AACSB International). This fee shall be in addition to
the State University Fee and any campus-based fees, and shall be assessed in
the amount of $210 per semester unit or $140 per quarter unit. The Graduate
Business Professional Fee shall apply to required courses in the following
degree programs: Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.); and Master of
Science (M.S.) programs in Accountancy, Business Administration, Health Care
Management, Business and Technology, Information Systems, and Taxation; and be
it further

RESOLVED, that beginning in fall 2010, whenever the
trustees take action to adjust the State University Fee for graduate students,
the same adjustment will be made to the Business Professional Fee; and be it
further

RESOLVED, that presidents are directed to set aside a
minimum of 25% and not more than 33% of the Graduate Business Professional Fee
revenue for need-based financial aid, with such funds to be used first to meet
the demonstrated financial need of students in campus professional graduate
degree programs in business; and that any part of the revenue that is not
awarded to professional business master’s degree program students be made
available to meet demonstrated financial need of any other undergraduate or
graduate students on the campus; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees expects that,
with this additional revenue made available to campuses, professional master’s
degree programs in business will show growth in enrollments consistent with
campus strategic plans; enrollment diversity that includes improved
representation of persons of modest financial means, and of persons from
currently underrepresented groups, and a more balanced gender representation;
support for students at the completion of their programs through such means as
internships and placement assistance; improvements in faculty recruitment and
retention success; and for programs that seek it, success in maintaining
accredited status with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International; and be it further

RESOLVED, that upon request of a campus president, the
chancellor is authorized to approve the assessment of a Graduate Business
Professional Fee upon students enrolled in other newly-developed
state-supported professional master’s degrees in business that are subject to
accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the chancellor provide the Board of
Trustees an accountability report in the 2011-12 fiscal year that is responsive
to these board expectations.

California State University
Education Doctorate State University Fee – Independent Educational Doctoral
Degree Program

1.A new fee will be
established as the CSU Education Doctorate State University Fee and will be charged
in lieu of the CSU State University Fee for students enrolled in the Education
Doctorate Program.

2.The fee structure
will be a modified version of the State University Fee structure. Regular
student fees will be defined as the fee rate for students enrolled in the
Education Doctorate Program independent of number of units. Limited student
fees will not apply to the Education Doctorate Program. Regular student fees
will be equal to the full academic year fee rate. The summer term fee rate
shall equal the academic year term rate regular students are charged,
respectively, at semester or quarter campuses.

3.The CSU Education
Doctorate State University Fee rate will be linked to the UC graduate fee rate
(or their Education Doctorate fee rate if a separate professional fee is so
established in the future). Increases in the CSU Education Doctorate State
University Fee will be tied to the percentage increase in the UC graduate fee.
For the 2007-08 academic year the fee level will be the adjusted rate based on
the 2006-07 University of California fee of $6,897 - the amount reflecting the
graduate mandatory fees approved by the University of California Regents for
the 2007-08 academic year.

4.Because of the
limited needs-based financial aid requirement for education doctorate student
enrollments, the financial aid set-aside from student fees will be 10 percent
of the academic year fee rate. After need-based aid has been provided, any
remaining funds from the set-aside would be used for general program purposes or
student support.

5.Employee fee
waivers will have to be negotiated for the new fee and the cost for the waiver
shall be funded from the employee compensation pool for each bargaining unit
and non-represented employees.

6.The trustees will
annually approve the academic year fee rate for the program.

7.Students enrolled
in the Education Doctorate Program will also pay campus-based mandatory fees.

California State University
Education Doctorate State University Fee – Independent Educational Doctoral
Degree Program (RFIN 11-06-09)

RESOLVED, By the Board of Trustees of the California State
University, that the CSU Education Doctorate State University Fee is hereby
established, which shall be authorized at a fee level that equals the graduate
student fee (or Education Doctorate fee rate if a separate professional fee is
so established in the future) at the University of California; and, be it
further

RESOLVED, That the fee rate approved for the 2007-08 academic
year the fee level will be the adjusted rate based on the 2006-07 University of
California fee of $6,897 - the amount reflecting the graduate mandatory fees
approved by the University of California Regents for the 2007-08 academic year;
and be it further

RESOLVED, That the chancellor may approve individual campus
CSU Education Doctorate State University Fee rates that do not exceed the
maximum graduate fee rates charged by the University of California, and be it
further

RESOLVED, The chancellor
is delegated authority to further adopt, amend, or repeal the CSU Education
Doctorate State University Fee rate if such action is required by the budget
act approved for 2007-08, and that such changes made by the chancellor are
communicated promptly to the trustees.